Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Most of us have
a sense of the relationship between the Roman Republic and the government of
the United States. For example, our Senate is named for the senior legislative
body of the ancient republic. But there is more to the relationship than names
as you will see below as we describe how the founders viewed ancient political
systems in their efforts to fashion a government for America.

The founders of our country were educated men. Most could read Latin and Greek -- most had studied the
history of governments and were well versed in ancient history. The Romans
stood out as their chosen model for a political system, not the Greeks. The
Athenian and Spartan systems were seen as inappropriate for the new country –
the former because it gave too much power to the people and the latter because
it operated in a non-economic model (a closed society with no trade).

The founders
were guided by four basic principles which were applied to the design of the
new government: 1) the need to protect life, liberty, and property, 2) a
commitment to republicanism, 3) the lessons of history, as seen in the ancient
world and modern Europe, and 4) contemporary political theory including the
philosophy of Locke and the checks and balances system of Montesquieu.

They
believed that only a republican model would be acceptable to the American people
because only it operated without the hereditary
monarchy and aristocracy so abhorrent to them. Beyond that unifying principle,
the framers had varying beliefs about the definition of “republic”. Prior to
1776, most would have defined a republic as something like their current colonial
governments which typically contained two legislative bodies and a chief
magistrate.

As the
Constitutional Convention approached, however, the founders did additional
research to refine their understanding of a republican political system. Two nuanced
definitions emerged from this thought process which are commonly labeled puritan
and agrarian. Both attempted to address the mortality of republics, that is
understanding the causes of their eventual decline. The puritan view, popular
in the north, was based almost completely on ancient political theory and held
that the longevity of a political system needed to be based on morality – create
good citizens and you will create a better government. Men should adhere to a
public virtue encompassing firmness, endurance, industry, and dedication to the
public good like the Greeks.

The agrarian
view, popular in the south, held that a prosperous socio-economic system would
create wealth and happiness for all, resulting in a stable and long lasting
political system. If a man owned land, he would be free from the trials of life
which could cause him to be impoverished. This philosophy was dovish in its
militancy – believing that a landowning class was a kind of utopia that did not
need to protect itself from decay.

As the
convention opened, delegates were faced with the decision of how best to adapt
the Roman system to a modern Unites States. There were certainly fundamental differences
between America and the Roman Republic and these influenced by the span of time
and the evolution of western culture over two millennia.

Rome had two
houses in its legislature: the Senate and the Assembly. The Senate was a
aristocratic body made up of patrician families who held a connection to the
three ancient tribes of Rome. The assembly (there were several of these over
time) was a public gathering of the people who voted individually for
candidates or laws. The Senate had 300 members for most of its existence, while
the assembly comprised all property owning citizens who attended its meetings. The
chief magistrates of the Republic were the consuls. Two were elected for a one
year term and had the right of veto over each other. This veto right was
designed to prevent an abuse of power.

Asthe American Constitutional Convention
approached, two camps of framers developed – nationalists who believed that a
central government was essential to the longevity of America and republican
ideologues who were only willing to grant federal control under certain
restrictions such as separation of powers. These polarizing views formed the
battle line of the convention and dictated the way the new American political
system would be designed. The majority of the debates were centered on the seat
of power – whether it would be with the people, with the government, or
somewhere in between.

The longest
(over a month) and most contentious debate involved the structure of the
legislature. Although a consensus on the bicameral model was achieved fairly
quickly, the convention bogged down over the method of representation . The
original proposal had both houses
elected based on population districts. This plan was opposed by the small
states who felt their interests would be dominated by the large states. On the
opposite side were those who pointed out the failings of the Articles of
Confederation due to deadlocks created from a system which allowed only one
vote per state. A compromise was eventually reached when the delegates agreed
to set up an equal number of senators for each state and only use the district
method for electing representatives.

The Roman
Assembly used a direct voting system, impractical in the United States because
of the vast geography and the difficulty of assembling the people. Instead the
convention opted for a representational system featuring elected officials as
representatives of the people. The founders felt that representatives trained
to serve in the government would be better equipped to take care of the needs
of the public than the people themselves.

With the structure
ofthe legislative branch finalized, the
convention when on to debate the office of chief magistrate or president. Some
advocated a dual president like the Roman consuls; some wanted one executive
per region to protect the interests of each region; others were opposed to any executive
because he would represent a dangerous concentration of power.

Again, as in
the case of the legislature, the convention got into a heated debate about the
length of the president’s term and the method of electing him. An early proposal
argued for the president to be elected to one term of seven years, and the
delegates labored to balance the time needed by the president to achieve his
goals with avoiding a concentration of power in the office. Many term lengths
were debated from four years to sixteen years before the convention decided to
let the president serve for terms of four years. Then the debate moved to the
method of election. Three choices were initially offered: letting the Congress
pick the president, letter the state legislatures pick the president, and
letting electors chosen by the people elect the president. The latter won out
as being the fairest way to allow the people to control who would become
president of the land.

Let
us now summarize how the model of government described in the Constitution
compares to the Roman Republic:

Two houses in the legislature – both.

A senior body of experienced men and a
junior body close to the people – both

Senators elected by the people - neither

A senior magistrate as executive –
United States one; Rome two.

One male landholders can vote – both

At the time of the Constitution’s
ratification, our government was as close to the Roman Republic as it would
ever be. And then things began to change as we moved in the direction of a
democracy. The property qualification was steadily reduced until about 1850 when
it was removed completely; the electors came to be chosen by the people instead
of the state legislatures, giving the people a direct say in electing the
president; and finally, in 1910, the law for electing senators was changed to
allow the people to elect them directly.

The differences between the two
Republics was dictated by the difference in culture and time, but our
attraction to the ancient system because it had no monarch led us to the
creation of a new version designed to withstand the modern age.

3 comments:

Thomas Jefferson responding to a letter, wrote, "the introduction of the new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us." (Paul A. Rahe found this.)

What you haven't discussed is that the term "republic" was purposely redefined by Machiavelli and Lorenzo Valla. Machiavelli specifically noted that Sparta had "mixed government". Sparta had a true republic. This is what Plato's Republic was based on.

The FFofA created out of thin air the American regime. America is not a true republic because it doesn't have a true aristocracy. No true aristocracy, no true republic. America was never a "republic" but is a pseudo-republic.

One can not say Sparta is a republic and America the same thing. Sparta was built "according to nature" while America was built on man's ideology of the Banavsic class.

An essential ingredient of a republic is Virtue. Socrates noted that "Where money is prized, Virtue is despised." One can not have a "commercial republic"; that is an oxymoron. Where money is involved, Virtue flies out the window. As you can tell, there is no virtue in America and hence no rule of law. The FFofA purposely built this country on commercialism and egalitarianism. Both Democratic conditions. Not republican parameters. Republics are built by Soldier/Farmer societies, not by merchant societies.

They believed that only a republican model would be acceptable to the American people because only it operated without the hereditary monarchy and aristocracy so abhorrent to them.

ALL the Western Classical republics were started under kings; the Doric Greek republics on Crete, the Spartan republic and the Roman republic. If an hereditary monarch and an aristocracy were aborhent to the FFofA, that means that they did NOT construct a true republic. As is seen by that quote by Thomas Jefferson, "representative democracy" is representative democracy--but NOT a republic. The Latin "respublica" is a translation of the Greek word "politeia". Politeia in Greek means "society". Aristotle said, "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state".

Does a family consist of all persons alike? NO. Neither does a state. Does all the organs of the human body look alike? No.

A republic is not "representative democracy" and a monochrome egalitarian group of people is not a state.

I found your information and data well researched and precise. You are to be lauded for this! Although I have a Masters in military history, your treatment is, once again, excellent. I will recommend other access your blog for data accuracy.